Laserfiche WebLink
05/05/87 <br /> Services for the Treated Water Storage Tank <br /> Project subject to Boulder County Commissioner's <br /> aff rmative review of the Special Review Use Site <br /> Application. <br /> Phare stated that the difference in the cost of <br /> the two proposals (UBItA, $68,600: and Rocky Moun- <br /> tain Consultants, 1128,997) for professional <br /> engineering services for this project is 'clearly a <br /> different level of effort anticipated in order to <br /> complete the project and bring that tank on line. <br /> Some of the major differences in how the two firms <br /> approached it was the level of inspection services <br /> anticipated during the construction of the tank end <br /> pipeline. The RMC proposal had approximately twice <br /> the vanhours devoted to that. The AMC proposal was <br /> also more detailed in their soils analysis and it <br /> was also proposing to complete corrosion analysis, <br /> corrosion system design and corrosion system <br /> testing based on their experience on the 60" liar- <br /> shall waterline and they felt that that* critical <br /> in that area.° •The Public Works' opinion is that <br /> the RMC proposal reflects more accurately the <br /> effort of work, completeness, etc., that we anti <br /> cipate that this type of project should haw.' <br /> Szymanski asked about the RfP's that Public Works <br /> designed for soliciting proposals. 'hare <br /> explained that the RIP was a two page proposal <br /> that identified in broad terms the level of effort <br /> and the scope of work that was needed for this <br /> project. Essentially, it asked of the bidders, <br /> '.tell as what needs to be done.` Phara stated <br /> - that although the Public Works Department knows <br /> generally of what needs to be done, i.e., a <br /> specific tank site, a specific point for <br /> distribution, a submission of a proposal is <br /> really only subject to a company's professional <br /> interpretation of what needs to be done in order <br /> to complete the project. <br /> In trying to analyse why there was such a <br /> difference in the two proposals, Phare stated that <br /> AMC anticipated the need for construction inspec- <br /> tion and identified and called for twice the <br /> amount of manhours than did MIA. RMC's identi- <br /> fied need for construction inspection has a cap - <br /> not to exceed price - and could fall below that <br /> which was bid. <br /> Phase stated that in working with aomart, IC/BMA is <br /> certainly familiar with the area, but given the <br /> work that RMC has done for the City, they clearly <br /> have an "inside track as to the existing system, <br /> 5 <br />